Why Is Gay Marriage Bad?

[Moby]

I keep asking this question every where but no one has a rational logical answer.

PLEASE NO "GAYS ARE BAD", "THE REPS ARE FILLED WITH HATE" type answers.

Seriously, I don't want this thread to be filled with hate and stupid comments. I would like to have a rational discussion about it. If you have a silly or emotional comment to make the please do it some where else.

[Moby]

And please let's leave the bible out of this.

The bible also says that anyone working on a Sunday should be put to death and that's all preachers. The bible also says "Thou shall not lie" but Dubya has even admitted to lying in his last speech. If you've ever eaten pork or shrimp then you've gone against the words of the bible so let's not try that one here.

[kres24GT]

If government say its bad then it is. We must always look to government on issues and have them tell us what is best for us and rob us of any freedoms they don't think we need. For the most part, government tells us that dudes marrying is bad, hence it is. We have chosen to entrust our lives to government and have voted most of our personal freedoms over to them ,as such they have every right tot ell us what we can and cannot do just as a parent can to a child they are responsible for. As Americans we do not want to be free to make these choices, we leave that to government.

[Moby]

If government say its bad then it is. We must always look to government on issues and have them tell us what is best for us and rob us of any freedoms they don't think we need. For the most part, government tells us that dudes marrying is bad, hence it is. We have chosen to entrust our lives to government and have voted most of our personal freedoms over to them ,as such they have every right tot ell us what we can and cannot do just as a parent can to a child they are responsible for. As Americans we do not want to be free to make these choices, we leave that to government.
Please save the babble for another post. I really want to have an intelligent discussion on this issue.

Come on, just one thread please.

[stefan segal]

Moby...I think to lump everyone under a single hard-edged tag: 'gay', is already starting off on the wrong foot for a serious discussion.

I have watched the gender lines blur at a greater and more pervasive rate, and the blured population cannot actually be termed gay...as there are so many varied flavors and degrees involved.

Is a transgendered male gay? are cross dressers gay? are bi-sexuals gay?

I guess it depends on the eye of the beholder.

There are also many people of the population who have experimented with homosexuality...but a great deal more, who, due to cirumstances, find comfort in thei own sex, until circumstances change.

The women of the civil war era "bundled" extensively...and it's an open joke about prisons...where the only stigma attached to such an act, is whether you're an "ee" or an "-or" as in fuck...but are they gay?

So just refining the question needs a deal of thought just to arrive at an answer that would be applicible to more than a characture...taking care not to assemble artificial groupings.

There's a growing group of quasi- msogynists, who can't afford or can't abide the existing levels of commerce in their sex life, as women force men into ecconomic competition, are demanding and litigious...so prefer rosey palm and prostitutes when their budget allows...are they gay?

Personal sex live of others, cannot truely be judged...and pressure from our society in the form discrimination, discriminately biased laws, hate crimes and social ostracizing, force all these flavors to band together under a single banner for their own protection...but a more diverse group couldn't be assembled under any other circumstances.

So I object to your question, in that in it;s present form it obsfuscates more than it engenders thought.

I believe a clean question would be based on a negative test..."as a man...have you ever had your tongue in another man's mouth?"

By crafting a series of yes_no type questions, some progress in sorting out the flavors is possible.

In this way, we have some sensible non-nebulous screen to allow roundup and branding with a viable method .

Joking aside...I think the true question is whether anyone has the right to stand to the side and judge another's private preferences...in anything!

It's massive hubris to even entertain the idea that one can judge another.

You said no bible...well your hubris to believe yourself a judge of any stripe...fair minded or not...comes straight from the bible...as no one else would impose on the provacy of another man's bedroom without license granted by that book.

It has for our history, poisoned and stunted our growth as a people, and difficult to make a consideration knowing how much or how little that book and its followers have clouded one's values...it's like ink in water...soon, there is one thing instead of two...but now just gray water.

Stefan

[Moby]

OK, so you have no comments on the pros or cons of the issue. Thanks for sharing ;) Please, if you don't then allow this thread to stay clean.

[kres24GT]

Like I said, gay marriage is bas because government says so. We as a nation have decided we want to be dependent on government for education. health care, retirement, and anything else we can. People prefer safety and comfort over freedom and we have voted accordingly. Since we have demanded government be responsible for us they have every right to tell us how we can live our lives. That's the cost of doing business. You can't have it both ways. .

[Tommy]

history does seem to repeat itself

Marriages by African-American slaves were banned in some U.S. states, and only permitted after the conclusion of the civil war.


Inter-racial marriages were considered a criminal act in some states until 1958.

[Paul Revere]

It should be called another name like hook-up, joint partner or such. Why? Because the definition of marriage which is the cornerstone of a lasting civilization, it is a blessed union of a man and a woman for purposes of continuing the descendants and family. Why desacrate and dimish the name of what defines a marriage (not slamming gays) but the terminology of the words. They are not held in the same way or light or purposes, in effect. I am not taking a position of judgement of lifesytle on this post and loneliness and having no companions or special friends, would be desolate and difficult. So for those of the same sex I can understand your trials, best to you. Some religions consider marriage as a covenant relationship with God(bible-two become one flesh..etc.), not a contract as our culture endorses with many divorces. This is why once married is in effect always married, unless death or annulment is declared because of factors missing from the dogmas of the covenant. In effect it was a sacred union with blessing from God and the gift of life was children. We grown ups herein were in effect prior gifts from a union, thus we can post because we were given life. Life is good. Probably not enough to answer your question, which you know is highly controversial stuff and in order to answer means you take some sort of position. I atleast tried and hope it is worthwhile for others to think about.

[exarmyranger]

The sexual preference/practice's of consenting adult's...(excluding,pedophlia,beastuality,or molestation of mentally handicaped persons),rape wheather homosexual,or hetro.is an act of violence,involving a sexual act(s)not a sexual act involving violence.The exsistance of homosexuality,is as old as that of hetrosexuality...In many cultures(many having a history longer than ten thousand years)excepted this as a natural occurance,men of an effeminate nature were not subjected to ridicule by those who were'nt(fem.)They were not required to hunt,or become warriors,they did the same work as the women.Although not as common,women who were of a masculine nature,and were physically able,could by choice become warrior/hunters.IMO any act wheather sexual,or not,that subjects anyone,who by age,mental or physyical handicap,are incapable of protesting,or protecting themselves,as henious a crime as any,and punishment should insure that repeating the act is physically impossible...As Stefan said,We cannot in all fairness lump sexual predators,and other devient scum,in the same pile as homosexual's.cya,ex.

[exarmyranger]

It should be called another name like hook-up, joint partner or such. Why? Because the definition of marriage which is the cornerstone of a lasting civilization, it is a blessed union of a man and a woman for purposes of continuing the descendants and family. Why desacrate and dimish the name of what defines a marriage (not slamming gays) but the terminology of the words. They are not held in the same way or light or purposes, in effect. I am not taking a position of judgement of lifesytle on this post and loneliness and having no companions or special friends, would be desolate and difficult. So for those of the same sex I can understand your trials, best to you. Some religions consider marriage as a covenant relationship with God(bible-two become one flesh..etc.), not a contract as our culture endorses with many divorces. This is why once married is in effect always married, unless death or annulment is declared because of factors missing from the dogmas of the covenant. In effect it was a sacred union with blessing from God and the gift of life was children. We grown ups herein were in effect prior gifts from a union, thus we can post because we were given life. Life is good. Probably not enough to answer your question, which you know is highly controversial stuff and in order to answer means you take some sort of position. I atleast tried and hope it is worthwhile for others to think about.Yo Paul,aside from the Catholic dogma(s)and the proscribed vow's of matrimony.Human's were hooking-up for life without the benifit of God's blessing since homo-erectous evolved into homo-sapiens,and were/are not alone in this practice,many spiecies of animals mate for life...Same sex unions,occour in nature also.Adoption's by gay couple's with the emoitional,and financiall means to adopt is better than 18yrs.of foster homes and/or institutions...ask someone who's been a ward of the state...Gays are not going away,nor are they getting back in the closet,they did'nt just appear,they are,as we are "Members of the human race"and always have been.People fear what they do not understand,and hate what they fear.In my youth I was incarserated in a county jail.A trustee pointed out a guy at a table,and said see that guy?I said "yeah so?"Best piece of ass in this place"he said and grinned" "No Shit"I said!!! The trustee looked me in the eye,winked and said,"Well maybe a little bit"...Peace to you and yours as well.ex.

[stefan segal]

If this question had come up years ago, I would have hit the streets with my placard not only demanding gay union, but maybe even push it a step farther and demand polygamous households.

I can't think of a better, more effective way to cut down on the competition...a righteous twofer.

If we are determined to single out this group for examination...they generally are better groomed than the rest of us, tend toward being wealthy (they don't open doors, pay for her cab or pick up the whole dinner check), they also are well read, witty and well spoken, while the biggest thing wrong with this group, is that women don't share the male view of homosexuals...in fact they enjoy spending time with them...time that could be better spent listening to some over-heated straight tell her all about his life...you see my point...there's only so many women in any one place, and if they are head to head with a gay having a great time, you've missed your chance to get up to bat...it's a matter of supply and demand...moving up the food female chain.

So pair gays up...and go with god, my sons.

Stefan

[exarmyranger]

Yo Stefan sometimes you crack me up...Praise the Lord and pass the donation plate Bro. t/c ex

[Moby]

Paul, what about 2 elderly people getting married? They're not doing it in "continuing the descendants and family" so why should that be called marriage?

What about people that don't want to have or can't have children. Should they be allowed to get married?

What about people that already have children and are divorced?

Adam and Eve were never actually married and they had only sons. That means that all of our descendants came from Adam's sons having sex with Eve since she was the only female around.

If the bible is right, none of us came from marriage. Marriage was brought around for legal reasons only.

Thoughts?